The Freemason's Chronicle, May 23, 1885: Page 4

Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.

Correspondence.

CORRESPONDENCE .

We do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions of our Cor . respondents . All Letters must bear the name and address 0 / the Writer , not necessarily for publication , but as a guarantee of good faith . We cannot undertake to return rejected communications .

PARSIS AND FIRE WORSHIP . To the Editor of ihe FIVE REASON ' S CHRONICLE .

DEAR SIB AND BROTHER , —In looking over the British Critic for the half year ending December 1803 , 1 notice a review of " Letters upon the Atlantis of Plato , and the Ancient History of Asia , " by M . Bailly . The author fixes upon " the bleak and frozen regions of

Siberia , " as " the primitive seat of science , the abode of the first race of men , the famed Atlantides . who descending in latter ages from the overflowing plains of Scvthia , and down tho steeps of Caucasus , brought , with them into Snnt . hprn Asia the rudiments of the arts and sciences , and tho worship of the snn and fire , which , he

asserts , could only have originated in a climate , and in the cheerless empire of polar darkness . " So writes the reviewer . M . Bailly was a Frenchman of great reputation as an astronomer , and it is said of him that he achieved notoriety nofc only for tho views he held on tho above subject , but also for his ingratitude . He is accused of having

received a private pension from the King , and of having insulted and betrayed him . Whatever may have been the truth in this matter , M . Bailly gained favour with the revolutionary party , but the connection proved his Nemesis . He advanced too far for his reputation , but not far enongh for his new friends , and from patriot to

traitor was bnfc a short step . He was guillotined in 1793 . Like Voltaire , whom he so much admired and flattered , he was the enemy of all religion , and his views relating thereto must be received with caution , if not with grave suspicion . M . Bailly ' s hostility to religion warped his Judgment , and

it may be influenced his estimation nnd statements of facts . Therefore the following must be taken with fcho limita . tions I have mentioned . He says the Persian nation , " in point of antiquity is at least equal to the Chinese . " Popular opinion assigns to the latter nation a fabulous age , bnt if M . Bailly is to be

relied npon the origin of the Chinese empire can bo held within the grasp of time . He adds that the Persian empire and the foundation of Persepolis asoend to " three thousand two hundred and nine years before Jesus Christ . " Whatever may be the value of this estimate , there can be no doubt of the antiquity of Persia , a claim urged by

the author of the history of the Parsis , and confirmed by others well able to judge . With equal confidence M . Bnilly says the Persians were " worshippers of the fire of the sun . " Here he parts company with Dosabhai Frnmji Kanaka , and falls into what appears to be a common error . That some Persians might have confounded substance

with symbol , a physical fact with a spiritual type , as did fche Egyptians of old , and as many do now , is quite possible , but the question arises—did the Persians really worship fire and tho sun as material entities ? M . Bailly assumes that they did , apparently upon the authority of tradition , and nofc npon facts duly weighed .

There is good evidence against his assumption , for the learned Thos . Hyde , D . D ., a centnry before M . Bailly ' s time , very clearly describes the theoryof fire and sun worship . The reviewer in the Critic , on the authority of Dr . Hyde , says , that ; the Persians " paid not their worship to the simple element of fire , bufc adored it as the symbol of

the Snpreme Being , who pervades , animates and cherishes the universe . The sun was still a brighter symbol , and still purer image , the august temple in which tbe Deity was thought to have placed his throne , and was honoured with mosfc fervent devotion , bufc still as a secondary object . "

In " the Pillar of Fire : or Israel in Bondage , " by the Rev . J . H . Ingraham , LL . D ., one of the principal characters is made to say " This meaning . . . removes ... fche impression . . . that you and the queen and your whole court [ Egyptian ] worshipped the sun as the Persic and Parthian natives do . " The following is put

into the mouth of another important character : " We are not idolafcors like the Persian and Barbara Kings . " These statements , coming from such a source , are rather staggering . While viewing with suspicion fche authority of M . Bailly , thafc of Dr . Ingraham on the other band claims respect . I do nofc pretend to decide between the

rival statements , I quote them to show that the belief in the idolatry of tho Persians is wide-spread , and is not confined to fche uneducated . The Parsis of India seem particularly jealous of their religion , as is shown by the work of their latest historian . The idea of idolatry is repugnant to them , and yet ifc confronts them in the

estimation of many at least who would nofc wilfnllv misinterpret their views , and who are entitled to speak with authority . The difficulty is for experts to settle , my part in fche matter ends with calling attention to a very serious divergence of opinion . Whatever

may have been the practice of the ancient Persians , I do not think ifc can be maintained that their descendants—fche Parsis of Indiaworship either fire or the sun , or that they are open in any sense to the charge of idolatry . I am , Sir , Yours fraternally , TOUR REVIEWER .

Correspondence.

is evidently between two stools . His question is a simple and natural one . Notice of motion for the exclusion of a brother had heen given , and as Master of the Lodge he wished to know whether he shonld bo acting Masonically and within the rules of the Constitu .

tions and Civil law if he placed the name of the threatened brother on the Lodge summons , especially as the accused had written pro . testing against suoh action . As a key-note to " W . M . ' s " sentiments , which were creditable to him , it may be mentioned that he asked also whether ifc would not be wiser to treat the case in the same manner

as thafc of a brother in arrears . Your answer is , —and it is worth repeating , — "No good purpose can follow tho pnblication of fche name in such a case ; in addition , we are of opinion thafc an action for libel might stand . " Your contemporary says that nofc only would ifc be in accordance with

Masonic authority " to give the name of the brother proposed to be excluded , " but "that it constitutes no libel to do so . Such also appears to have been the opinion of Bro . Mr . Justice Field in a well , known case . " I must plead ignorance of the " well-known case . " Were I conversant with it , perhaps I might find that it was not on

all fours with the case "W . M . " mentions . Putting aside the question of precedent—for afc present ifc is an unknown quantity in the argument—I propose to deal with the matter from a common sense view . Firsfc of all ifc is doubtful whether your contemporary has not volunteered its authority—thafc is , has inserted a letter from your

issue of the previous week for the sake of airing its knowledge and of playing the scarcely friendly part of censor upon yourself . That this view is nofc altogether without warrant may be seen by an advertisement of the candidate for assistance from a Benevolent Institution . The election took place on 1 st May , and it is stated in

the advertisement that it would take place on thafc day , and yet the advertisement is repeated on the 9 th . It is a clear case of copying , and not of order . The advertisement I refer to is thafc of a candi . date for tbe Governesses' Benevolent Annuity Fund . I know of one or two cases in which you have inserted charitable advertisements

gratuitously , when yon have felt there were special claims , and I shonld not be surprised to hear that you had been solicited to assist in this instance . If that be so , ifc is rather singular thafc your contemporary shonld wait a fortnight before complying with a similar re . quest , presuming , of course , snch request to have been made . I am

strengthened in this view by observing that in your contemporary ' s issue of the 16 th inst . not only is this same advertisement repeated , but there is another one referring to the anniversary of the Ragged School Union , which actually took place on the 11 th inst . I pass by other advertisements which have appeared from time fco time , because

yonr contemporary although dated Saturday is published on Friday morning , so that announcements referring to matters to take place on that day cannot fairly be claimed as anachronisms . The other

oases I refer to are stupid blunders . They imply thab what we in tho conntry call " bucks" are largely used by your contemporary . There are other advertisements and matters of a suspicious character which indicate to mo some of fche tricks of the trade .

And while I am in the censorious mood , I may as well say that I hold the editor responsible for the proper reading of his own matter at least . Your contemporary is often disfigured by typographical blunders , which show nofc only negligence but incompetence . Tho word " outline " for " outlive " is unpardonable in a leader in a

paper thafc boasts in tho very next sentence that ifc is " really and truly one of the leading Masonic journals in Masonry . " Truly ! how modest ! Now I like the Freemason , aud am sorry to notice , as I do from time to time , its many shortcomings . Its egotism , I admit , is occasionally too strong . The flavour is always present , but

the element of self-praise now and then chokes one . I like a little Latin or French sometimes , not that I understand much of either , but ifc looks so learned to be able to use foreign words and phrases . Ifc is true English wonld be equally , if not more effective , but then ifc would not look so nice nor please tho " gods" nearly so well .

Forgive me for trespassing thus far . And now let me say a few words about the two answers referred to above . I do not think many will hesitate to say ou which side lies the higher claim to morality and Masonic generosity . To fche possible parading of a brother ' s Masonic delinquencies I have the strongest

objection . It is contrary to the spirit of tho Craft . If the offence were of a moro serious character , then the publication of it would not only be immoral on the part of the brother who caused ifc to be done , bnfc decidedly libellous in a legal sense . I should like to know where the Masonic authority is to be found for your contemporary ' s

opinion . " W . M . " cannot find a rule in the Book of Constitutions that applies to the case , and I do not remember any rule that can be appealed to . Surely your contemporary might have pointed out the authority , especially as " W . M . " distinctly asks for ifc . Bufc ifc does nothing of fche kind ; ifc speaks ex cathedra , and expects to be received as Sir Oiacle .

Freemasonry , if ifc is anything , is a secrefc society . The law of the land sanctions its existence , but ifc in no way exonerates ifc from legal responsibility . Apart from the un-Masonio act of publishing anything that reflects on the character of of a brother , there remains the rights of citizenship , and no privilege ought to protect a man

against Masonio unbrotberly feeling and the infraction of legal rights . ^ I do nofc believe thafc the law would sane tion such a violation as your contemporary suggests , and I am certain that every Masonic feeling is against snch a proceeding . We are bound to uphold a Mason's honour , to deal generously with his

faults , to protect him even against himself . To say then that ifc is lawful to publish a statement that might injure him , thafc would certainly leave a stain npon his character , is contrary to every right I

ever heard of , and repugnant to that charity which hopeth all things , and covereth a multitude of sins . You have common sense , hononr , morality and charity on your side;—I leave your contemporary to find out what virtue it can claim . I am , Sir and Brother , Yours fraternally , FAIR FIAY .

Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.

Correspondence.

CORRESPONDENCE .

We do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions of our Cor . respondents . All Letters must bear the name and address 0 / the Writer , not necessarily for publication , but as a guarantee of good faith . We cannot undertake to return rejected communications .

PARSIS AND FIRE WORSHIP . To the Editor of ihe FIVE REASON ' S CHRONICLE .

DEAR SIB AND BROTHER , —In looking over the British Critic for the half year ending December 1803 , 1 notice a review of " Letters upon the Atlantis of Plato , and the Ancient History of Asia , " by M . Bailly . The author fixes upon " the bleak and frozen regions of

Siberia , " as " the primitive seat of science , the abode of the first race of men , the famed Atlantides . who descending in latter ages from the overflowing plains of Scvthia , and down tho steeps of Caucasus , brought , with them into Snnt . hprn Asia the rudiments of the arts and sciences , and tho worship of the snn and fire , which , he

asserts , could only have originated in a climate , and in the cheerless empire of polar darkness . " So writes the reviewer . M . Bailly was a Frenchman of great reputation as an astronomer , and it is said of him that he achieved notoriety nofc only for tho views he held on tho above subject , but also for his ingratitude . He is accused of having

received a private pension from the King , and of having insulted and betrayed him . Whatever may have been the truth in this matter , M . Bailly gained favour with the revolutionary party , but the connection proved his Nemesis . He advanced too far for his reputation , but not far enongh for his new friends , and from patriot to

traitor was bnfc a short step . He was guillotined in 1793 . Like Voltaire , whom he so much admired and flattered , he was the enemy of all religion , and his views relating thereto must be received with caution , if not with grave suspicion . M . Bailly ' s hostility to religion warped his Judgment , and

it may be influenced his estimation nnd statements of facts . Therefore the following must be taken with fcho limita . tions I have mentioned . He says the Persian nation , " in point of antiquity is at least equal to the Chinese . " Popular opinion assigns to the latter nation a fabulous age , bnt if M . Bailly is to be

relied npon the origin of the Chinese empire can bo held within the grasp of time . He adds that the Persian empire and the foundation of Persepolis asoend to " three thousand two hundred and nine years before Jesus Christ . " Whatever may be the value of this estimate , there can be no doubt of the antiquity of Persia , a claim urged by

the author of the history of the Parsis , and confirmed by others well able to judge . With equal confidence M . Bnilly says the Persians were " worshippers of the fire of the sun . " Here he parts company with Dosabhai Frnmji Kanaka , and falls into what appears to be a common error . That some Persians might have confounded substance

with symbol , a physical fact with a spiritual type , as did fche Egyptians of old , and as many do now , is quite possible , but the question arises—did the Persians really worship fire and tho sun as material entities ? M . Bailly assumes that they did , apparently upon the authority of tradition , and nofc npon facts duly weighed .

There is good evidence against his assumption , for the learned Thos . Hyde , D . D ., a centnry before M . Bailly ' s time , very clearly describes the theoryof fire and sun worship . The reviewer in the Critic , on the authority of Dr . Hyde , says , that ; the Persians " paid not their worship to the simple element of fire , bufc adored it as the symbol of

the Snpreme Being , who pervades , animates and cherishes the universe . The sun was still a brighter symbol , and still purer image , the august temple in which tbe Deity was thought to have placed his throne , and was honoured with mosfc fervent devotion , bufc still as a secondary object . "

In " the Pillar of Fire : or Israel in Bondage , " by the Rev . J . H . Ingraham , LL . D ., one of the principal characters is made to say " This meaning . . . removes ... fche impression . . . that you and the queen and your whole court [ Egyptian ] worshipped the sun as the Persic and Parthian natives do . " The following is put

into the mouth of another important character : " We are not idolafcors like the Persian and Barbara Kings . " These statements , coming from such a source , are rather staggering . While viewing with suspicion fche authority of M . Bailly , thafc of Dr . Ingraham on the other band claims respect . I do nofc pretend to decide between the

rival statements , I quote them to show that the belief in the idolatry of tho Persians is wide-spread , and is not confined to fche uneducated . The Parsis of India seem particularly jealous of their religion , as is shown by the work of their latest historian . The idea of idolatry is repugnant to them , and yet ifc confronts them in the

estimation of many at least who would nofc wilfnllv misinterpret their views , and who are entitled to speak with authority . The difficulty is for experts to settle , my part in fche matter ends with calling attention to a very serious divergence of opinion . Whatever

may have been the practice of the ancient Persians , I do not think ifc can be maintained that their descendants—fche Parsis of Indiaworship either fire or the sun , or that they are open in any sense to the charge of idolatry . I am , Sir , Yours fraternally , TOUR REVIEWER .

Correspondence.

is evidently between two stools . His question is a simple and natural one . Notice of motion for the exclusion of a brother had heen given , and as Master of the Lodge he wished to know whether he shonld bo acting Masonically and within the rules of the Constitu .

tions and Civil law if he placed the name of the threatened brother on the Lodge summons , especially as the accused had written pro . testing against suoh action . As a key-note to " W . M . ' s " sentiments , which were creditable to him , it may be mentioned that he asked also whether ifc would not be wiser to treat the case in the same manner

as thafc of a brother in arrears . Your answer is , —and it is worth repeating , — "No good purpose can follow tho pnblication of fche name in such a case ; in addition , we are of opinion thafc an action for libel might stand . " Your contemporary says that nofc only would ifc be in accordance with

Masonic authority " to give the name of the brother proposed to be excluded , " but "that it constitutes no libel to do so . Such also appears to have been the opinion of Bro . Mr . Justice Field in a well , known case . " I must plead ignorance of the " well-known case . " Were I conversant with it , perhaps I might find that it was not on

all fours with the case "W . M . " mentions . Putting aside the question of precedent—for afc present ifc is an unknown quantity in the argument—I propose to deal with the matter from a common sense view . Firsfc of all ifc is doubtful whether your contemporary has not volunteered its authority—thafc is , has inserted a letter from your

issue of the previous week for the sake of airing its knowledge and of playing the scarcely friendly part of censor upon yourself . That this view is nofc altogether without warrant may be seen by an advertisement of the candidate for assistance from a Benevolent Institution . The election took place on 1 st May , and it is stated in

the advertisement that it would take place on thafc day , and yet the advertisement is repeated on the 9 th . It is a clear case of copying , and not of order . The advertisement I refer to is thafc of a candi . date for tbe Governesses' Benevolent Annuity Fund . I know of one or two cases in which you have inserted charitable advertisements

gratuitously , when yon have felt there were special claims , and I shonld not be surprised to hear that you had been solicited to assist in this instance . If that be so , ifc is rather singular thafc your contemporary shonld wait a fortnight before complying with a similar re . quest , presuming , of course , snch request to have been made . I am

strengthened in this view by observing that in your contemporary ' s issue of the 16 th inst . not only is this same advertisement repeated , but there is another one referring to the anniversary of the Ragged School Union , which actually took place on the 11 th inst . I pass by other advertisements which have appeared from time fco time , because

yonr contemporary although dated Saturday is published on Friday morning , so that announcements referring to matters to take place on that day cannot fairly be claimed as anachronisms . The other

oases I refer to are stupid blunders . They imply thab what we in tho conntry call " bucks" are largely used by your contemporary . There are other advertisements and matters of a suspicious character which indicate to mo some of fche tricks of the trade .

And while I am in the censorious mood , I may as well say that I hold the editor responsible for the proper reading of his own matter at least . Your contemporary is often disfigured by typographical blunders , which show nofc only negligence but incompetence . Tho word " outline " for " outlive " is unpardonable in a leader in a

paper thafc boasts in tho very next sentence that ifc is " really and truly one of the leading Masonic journals in Masonry . " Truly ! how modest ! Now I like the Freemason , aud am sorry to notice , as I do from time to time , its many shortcomings . Its egotism , I admit , is occasionally too strong . The flavour is always present , but

the element of self-praise now and then chokes one . I like a little Latin or French sometimes , not that I understand much of either , but ifc looks so learned to be able to use foreign words and phrases . Ifc is true English wonld be equally , if not more effective , but then ifc would not look so nice nor please tho " gods" nearly so well .

Forgive me for trespassing thus far . And now let me say a few words about the two answers referred to above . I do not think many will hesitate to say ou which side lies the higher claim to morality and Masonic generosity . To fche possible parading of a brother ' s Masonic delinquencies I have the strongest

objection . It is contrary to the spirit of tho Craft . If the offence were of a moro serious character , then the publication of it would not only be immoral on the part of the brother who caused ifc to be done , bnfc decidedly libellous in a legal sense . I should like to know where the Masonic authority is to be found for your contemporary ' s

opinion . " W . M . " cannot find a rule in the Book of Constitutions that applies to the case , and I do not remember any rule that can be appealed to . Surely your contemporary might have pointed out the authority , especially as " W . M . " distinctly asks for ifc . Bufc ifc does nothing of fche kind ; ifc speaks ex cathedra , and expects to be received as Sir Oiacle .

Freemasonry , if ifc is anything , is a secrefc society . The law of the land sanctions its existence , but ifc in no way exonerates ifc from legal responsibility . Apart from the un-Masonio act of publishing anything that reflects on the character of of a brother , there remains the rights of citizenship , and no privilege ought to protect a man

against Masonio unbrotberly feeling and the infraction of legal rights . ^ I do nofc believe thafc the law would sane tion such a violation as your contemporary suggests , and I am certain that every Masonic feeling is against snch a proceeding . We are bound to uphold a Mason's honour , to deal generously with his

faults , to protect him even against himself . To say then that ifc is lawful to publish a statement that might injure him , thafc would certainly leave a stain npon his character , is contrary to every right I

ever heard of , and repugnant to that charity which hopeth all things , and covereth a multitude of sins . You have common sense , hononr , morality and charity on your side;—I leave your contemporary to find out what virtue it can claim . I am , Sir and Brother , Yours fraternally , FAIR FIAY .